How might a Humanist, who supports the Dignity in Dying campaign, reply to these arguments against euthanasia?

ARGUMENT AGAINST EUTHANASIA HUMANIST REPLY
One of the main religious arguments against euthanasia is that only God should take life. It is only for God to choose when a person dies. Euthanasia involves humans playing God and this is a challenge to God’s authority
Humanists do not believe in God, and many believe it should be a person’s right to choose how and when they die, if they are suffering. If religious believers choose not to participate in euthanasia, that’s their choice, but Humanists consider it wrong for religious people to stand in the way of others, who do not share their beliefs, who may wish to choose assisted dying.
Also, some might argue that modern medicine, which prevents people from dying and prolongs their lives, does not respect God’s choice of when a person dies. Why apply this rule only to ending life, and not to preserving life beyond its natural limit?
Sanctity of life is another major religious argument against euthanasia. Human life is sacred, created by God for a special purpose; it is to be cherished and preserved – never destroyed.
Humanists do not believe in the sanctity of life as they do not accept that life is God-given. People make their own lives purposeful and, if they feel that their lives can no longer be purposeful or fulfilling, they should have the freedom to choose to end their suffering.
Religious believers may also see it as a sin to take the life of an innocent person.
Humanists do not believe in sin. Acts are deemed right or wrong through conscience and reference to the laws of the land. Humanists would argue that to make a person endure unnecessary suffering is worse than painlessly ending their life, at the person’s own request.
Many religious people and non-religious people are concerned that allowing euthanasia could lead to a slippery slope situation - where do you draw the line? For instance, if euthanasia is allowed for terminally ill people, then it could be argued that it should also be allowed for those who have to suffer with permanent illnesses that are not terminal.
Dignity in Dying campaign for strict safeguards to be put in place to ensure that only those with terminal illnesses, with a prognosis of less than six months to live can access assisted dying. Humanists believe that assisted dying and euthanasia should always be the patient’s own choice; never promoted or required by a health service or state, nor ever recommended to a patient.
Whether religious or not, many people worry that allowing patients to choose euthanasia may lead to vulnerable people being exploited – they could perhaps feel pressured to opt for euthanasia if they feel like a burden to their families, or a strain on health services.
See above
Religious and non-religious people alike may be concerned that, if doctors are allowed to perform euthanasia, this could lead to a breakdown in trust between doctors and patients.
This has not been the case in the many places where doctors are allowed to perform assisted dying at the patient’s request. Many Humanists argue that doctors are now capable of extending patients’ lives beyond natural limits and this leads to unnecessary, prolonged suffering. This, it could be argued, could lead people not to trust doctors.
Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath in which they promise to preserve life and never to assist a patient to end their life, by giving them advice on how to do so or by physically helping them to die.
Many people argue that the ancient Hippocratic Oath, whilst taken with the most noble intentions, is now out of step with modern medicine. When the Oath was composed, the many advanced medical interventions whereby a patient can now be kept alive simply didn’t exist then. Many people would argue that some of these life-extending interventions are cruel and prolong suffering for patients.
Palliative care for the terminally ill can relieve pain and suffering and provide a patient with a reasonably comfortable death. Hospices can care for the dying person in a more holistic way than a hospital.
It is good that there are options for patients and hospice care is generally excellent. However, hospice places are limited in the UK, and often specialise in cancer care – what if the dying person has another type of illness? Ultimately, palliative care should be an option and the patient should be made aware of it, but they should still, ultimately, be able to exercise the right to choose the time and place of their death, as well as who will be with them.